Comment by riku_iki
7 months ago
> but as you may guess we did not use btrfs ever again.
there are scenarious where btrfs is currently can't be replaced: high performance + data compression.
7 months ago
> but as you may guess we did not use btrfs ever again.
there are scenarious where btrfs is currently can't be replaced: high performance + data compression.
Sure, I can believe this. Does not change the fact that some people encounter compete data loss with it.
Sadly, there are people (and distributions) which recommend btrfs for general-purpose root filesystem, even for the cases where reliability matters much more than performance. I think that part is a mistake,
I would recommend btrfs as general purpose root filesystem. Any FS will have people encountering data loss. I can believe btrfs has N times higher chance of data loss because its packed with features and need to maintain various complicated indexes which are easier to corrupt, but I also believe that one should be ready that his disk will fail any minute regardless of FS, and do backup/replication accordingly.
While I did that and lost near to nothing, I still think that this should not be the default approach of developing a filesystem... it should be ready to restore as much as possible in case of hardware failure or data corruption.
1 reply →
OpenZFS does a better job here, at least if you can deal with an out of tree filesystem.
actually, my personal benchmarks and multiple accounts in internet say it is much slower than btrfs under the load.
For smaller disk setups possibly but with large enough scale ZFS ends up beating out btrfs.
3 replies →